User talk:London3Calling

Hi London3Calling! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:

Search the Task Center

Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 10:09, 16 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

You linked the word "critical" to Critical theory, which is clearly not an appropriate link. It's always a good idea to check a new link. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello Doug. I reckoned that since the focus of that article is pretty clearly one of structural inequities, critical theory would serve as a good hyperlink and would play well to the article's tone. My apologies if that was poor judgement. London3Calling (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:04, 27 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

You reverted an edit with the summary: "France spends more money on education than any other OECD nation.". Where do you take that from? That's in contradiction with the latest data from OECD. — Maxlath (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

My apologies, that stat was specifically about higher education spending per student, rather than ALL education. London3Calling (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Wealth of Donald Trump. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Mikewem (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Pedophile Protection Party. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments belong on the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and may respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Pedophile Protection Party, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wtf are you talking about??? The burden of proof to provide a source is on the editors (like you, it seems) who allowed that preposterous article to exist INSPITE of the fact that there's no evidence whatsoever for your claims. London3Calling (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

The onus is on you to support your claim with reliable, secondary sources.

You're welcome to nominate it for deletion instead of adding your own commentary. The page for that is here: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion Celjski Grad (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

No it's not lmao. The onus is on the people who created the article. Either way, the source is there now. London3Calling (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

The article has over 80 sources, did you miss them? Your source still doesn't support your claim, but I'm not that invested in the article to continue arguing with you. Celjski Grad (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Cuz your shtick is to be disingenuous and pretend not to understand things. London3Calling (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Save the personal attacks please--read WP:CIVIL for more guidance. Celjski Grad (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm just describing the nature of your comments here so far. Disingenuous and clearly pretending not to understand what I'm conveying. As if the 80 sources on the page are about the most important thing that matters - whether the claim that the GOP is a pedophile protection party is true or not. and there's absolutely no evidence or claim for that whatsoever. the article's sources are just links to a bunch of idiots making the false claim that led to the creation of the article in the first place.

But sure, i'll be nominating the article for deletion London3Calling (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Disingenuous and clearly pretending not to understand

I won't warn you about personal attacks again.

The very first sentence quite clearly says "are pejoratives used to claim". It does not claim they are true. It then supports (again, with 80 sources) that this pejorative is widely used. Celjski Grad (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

you'll get over it London3Calling (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Incivility, edit-warring, pov-pushing, and general nothereness from London3calling. Mikewem (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply